DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 24 is directed to a computer readable medium which can encompass non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007). While the specification indicates that the computer readable medium could be a semiconductor memory, a hard disk memory or an optical memory, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “computer readable medium”, in light of the specification, could be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art encompasses transitory forms of signal transmission. The Examiner suggests amending the claims to specify that the computer readable storage medium is a non-transitory computer readable storage medium.
Claims 1-6, 8-15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g., an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Regarding claim 1, using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that the claim is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does the claim fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward a machine which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The function performed by the system in claim 1 includes limitations that may be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, recites an abstract idea. The functions of identifying a person condition associated with a person and determining a first path that extends between a source and a first destination based on the person input and the person condition are mental processes which can be practically performed in the human mind. These limitations are equivalent to a person mentally diagnosing another person with a condition and then mentally determining a route to a destination based on the other person’s condition and input. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[Mental processes] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). As such, if one was presented with information regarding a person and an input associated with a preference of the person, one could mentally diagnose a condition of the person and mentally determine a path to a destination based on the condition and the preference.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 1 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. The claim further recites the function of receiving a person input associated with a person preference of the person. This limitation is equivalent to mere data gathering which, when recited at a high level of generality as in the instance case, is a form of extra-solution activity and does not constitute a practical application of the recited mental processes. The claim also recites the function of transmitting the first path and the first path condition to a computing device associated with the person. This limitation is equivalent to merely transmitting data which, when recited at a high level of generality as in the instance case, is a form of extra-solution activity and does not constitute a practical application of the recited mental processes.
Also, as noted above, merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. In the instant case, the functions are performed by a system comprising a processor and a memory, i.e. a computer. Thus, it is clear that the abstract idea is merely implemented on a computer, which is indicative of the abstract idea having not been integrated into a practical application.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim 1 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not merely insignificant extra-solution activities. As discussed above, the receiving step is equivalent to an insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere performance of a data gathering is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Also, as set forth below in the rejections related to prior art, using a receiving an input associated with a person preference and transmitting a determined path to a device are functions that are known in the art of vehicle navigation and control.
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 1 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 1 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 10 and 18 are commensurate in scope with claim 1 with the exception that they are directed to a computer readable storage medium and a method respectively. Therefore, the same subject matter eligibility analysis can be applied to claims 10 and 18 as was applied to claim 1.
Dependent claims 1-6, 8, 9, 11-15, 17, 19, and 20 further limit the abstract idea of the independent claim without adding significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. For example, claims 2, 11, and 19 limit that the inventions uses a machine learning model to identify a second destination, identify a second path, generate a second path condition, and transmit the second path and second path condition. The identifying and generating limitations in these claims are further mental processes which, like the limitations in claim 1, can be practically performed in the human mind. The transmitting limitation is equivalent to merely transmitting the result of a mental process which, when recited at a high level of generality as in the instant case, is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and does not constitute a practical application of the recited mental process. As a further example, claims 4 and 13 limit that the invention identifies a supply, identifies a location that has the supply, determines that the first path is within predetermined proximity of the location and set the first path condition to indicate that the first path is within the predetermined proximity. These limitations are further mental processes which can be practically performed in the human mind. For example, based on the person condition, one could mentally determine a medication for the person condition, mentally identify a pharmacy which has the medication, mentally determine that the pharmacy is located along the first path, and mentally set the first path condition to indicate as such. As a final example, claim 8 limits that the invention accesses a history of the person and determines, with a machine learning model, the person condition based on the history. Accessing a history is equivalent to mere data gathering which, when recited at a high level of generality as in the instant case, is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and does not constitute a practical application of the recited mental process. Determining the person condition based on the history is a mental process which can be practically performed in the human mind. If one were presented with a medical history of a person, one could mentally determine a medical diagnosis based on the medical history.
The Examiner notes that claims 7 and 16 are not rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claims integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application by controlling a vehicle based on the first path.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8, 10, 11, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tamori (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0387640).
Regarding claim 1, Tamori teaches a computing system comprising: a processor; and a memory (Paragraph 0417 FIG. 16 illustrates a configuration example of a general-purpose computer. The computer incorporates a central processing unit (CPU) 1001. An input/output interface 1005 is connected to the CPU 1001 via a bus 1004. A read only memory (ROM) 1002 and a random access memory (RAM) 1003 are connected to the bus 1004.) having a set of instructions, which when executed by the processor, causes the computing system to: identify a person condition associated with a person, wherein the person condition is associated with a diagnosis of the person, wherein the person condition is associated with an affliction of the person (Paragraph 0177 The situation recognition unit 153 detects the abnormal physical condition of the driver according to the detected information that specifies the driver, the line-of-sight detection, and the vital data such as the heartbeat, pulse, body surface pulse wave, and body temperature, and implements the driving control according to the detection result.); receive a person input associated with a person preference of the person (Paragraph 0094 In a case where there is the information of the medical record of the driver in the abnormal physical condition, the medical institution that holds the medical record is likely to be the driver's regular hospital or the like. Therefore, if the treatment for the driver in the current abnormal physical condition is possible, the hospital may be preferentially specified as the medical institution on the destination even if the hospital is a little far away.); determine a first path that extends between a source and a first destination based on the person input and the person condition (Paragraph 0141 The route planning unit 161 plans a route to a destination on the basis of the data or signals from the units of the vehicle control system 100 such as the map analysis unit 151 and the situation prediction unit 154.); determine a first path condition associated with the first path based on the person condition (Paragraph 0141 Furthermore, for example, the route planning unit 161 appropriately changes the route on the basis of situations of congestion, accidents, traffic regulations, construction, and the like, the physical conditions of the driver, and the like.); and transmit the first path and the first path condition to a computing device associated with the person, wherein the computing device has a digital interface to display the first path and the first path condition (Paragraph 0367 In step S101, the abnormal situation processing unit 203 controls the information display unit 252 to present the information of the medical institution for applying the medical treatment to the driver in the abnormal physical condition, and move the vehicle 11 toward the medical institution.).
Regarding claims 10 and 18, the claims are commensurate in scope with claim 1 with the exception that they are directed to a computer readable storage medium and a method respectively. Therefore, the same prior art can be applied to claims 10 and 18 as was applied to claim 1.
Regarding claims 2, 11, and 19, Tamori teaches the system/method of claims 1, 10, and 18 as set forth above. Tamori further teaches wherein the instructions of the memory, when executed, cause the computing system to: identify, with a machine learning model, a second destination based on the person input; identify, with the machine learning model, a second path that extends between the source and the second destination based on the person input and the person condition; generate, with the machine learning model, a second path condition associated with the second path based on the person condition; and transmit the second path and the second path condition to the computing device, wherein the digital interface of the computing device displays the second path and the second path condition (Paragraph 0344 Note that the agent function that determines the medical treatment may be implemented by machine learning or the like using the information such as the medical record information, the vital data, and the presence or absence of the emergency call, and the corresponding treatment and the information of the presence or absence of the rescue by the emergency vehicle.).
Regarding claim 8, Tamori teaches the system of claim 1 as set forth above. Tamori further teaches wherein the instructions of the memory, when executed, cause the computing system to: access a history of the person, wherein the history of the person includes a medical history of the person and a medical condition of the person; and determine, with a machine learning model, the person condition based on the history of the person (Paragraph 0344 Note that the agent function that determines the medical treatment may be implemented by machine learning or the like using the information such as the medical record information, the vital data, and the presence or absence of the emergency call, and the corresponding treatment and the information of the presence or absence of the rescue by the emergency vehicle.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3, 12, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamori in view of Hara (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0061314) and Thomas (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0350079).
Regarding claims 3, 12, and 20, Tamori teaches the system/method of claims 1, 10, and 18 as set forth above. However, Tamori does not teach wherein the instructions of the memory, when executed, cause the computing system to: receive data from a plurality of container vaults; identify objects that have been dispensed by the container vaults; and determine geographic locations of the container vaults.
Hara, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a system for dispensing medication to a person. The receives determines a medication needed by the person (Paragraph 0019 At a medical facility equipped with the third terminal apparatus 14, health care professionals provide medical services for patients. The third terminal apparatus 14 generates prescription-related information based on user inputs about prescriptions based on the medical services.), identifies a vendor vehicle which has the medication in stock (Paragraph 0099 In a case in which the prescribed quantity of the medicine is stocked by the vendor vehicle 16, the controller 41 controls the communication interface 39 to send to the on-board apparatus 15 a request for notification of the location of the vendor vehicle 16.), determines if the vendor vehicle is along the path of the person (Paragraph 0099 When the location of the vendor vehicle 16 is received from the on-board apparatus 15 in response to the request for the notification of the location, the controller 41 determines whether the vendor vehicle 16 is able to reach a point on the travel route from the location within the travel time period.), and determines a parking location to dispense the medication to the person (Paragraph 0102 When the controller 41 authorizes the vendor vehicle 16 to sell the medicine as described above, the controller 41 determines a location on the travel route as a parking location. The controller 41 also determines a collection time by which the vendor vehicle 16 is controlled to reach the parking location. The method of determining the parking location and the collection time is similar to the determination method implemented by the controller 22 of the first terminal apparatus 12.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Tamori with the teachings of Hara which teaches determining a medication needed by the person, identifying a vendor vehicle which has the medication in stock, determining if the vendor vehicle is along the path of the person, and determining a parking location to dispense the medication to the person in order to reduce the effort required by patients to receive pharmaceutical products (See Hara Paragraph 0011 The information processing apparatus, the information processing system, the storage medium, and the information processing method according to an embodiment of the present disclosure can reduce the effort required by patients to receive pharmaceutical products.).
Tamori also does not teach wherein to determine the first path condition, the instructions of the memory, when executed, cause the computing system to identify a disease that has an increased risk of adversely affecting the person based on the person having the affliction; and identify whether the disease exists along the first path based on the objects and the geographic locations.
Thomas, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a navigation system. The system determines intermediate locations along the route of a person which are experiencing disease outbreaks which may adversely affect the person due to the condition of the person’s vaccination status (Paragraph 0017 The personal information of the user collected by the smartphone 410 or computer 420 also includes any intermediate locations along the user's travel route that are not specifically indicated on the user's travel itinerary. For example, the user travelling from Toledo, Ohio to New York City, may reside in Ft. Wayne, Ind. and planning on driving to Toledo for a flight. System 10 will collect this information and determine if any actual or potential outbreaks exist along one or more routes to Toledo from the user's residential address. For example, system 10 may recognize an outbreak or potential outbreak in Defiance, Ohio, a likely intermediate location along a potential driving route between the user's residential address and Toledo.) and provides alternate routes to the person which do not include the intermediate locations experiencing outbreaks (Paragraph 0020 System 10 may provide alternative routes to avoid the need to update vaccinations or the user may propose such routes. The user inputs information about new vaccinations they received and any changes to the travel plan(s). Data analyzing system 200 analyzes the updated personal data to create routes of travel based on the user's current vaccination records, ability to get the recommended vaccination, and travel schedule.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Tamori in view of Hara with the teachings of Thomas which teaches determining intermediate locations along the route of a person which are experiencing disease outbreaks which may adversely affect the person due to the condition of the person’s vaccination status and providing alternate routes to the person which do not include the intermediate locations experiencing outbreaks in order to help the person avoid dangerous locations along their route (See Thomas Paragraph 0023 If an infectious disease outbreak in identified within this radius, system 10 warns the user of needed vaccinations for the identified disease so they user can receive the needed vaccination and/or avoid the location of the identified outbreak.).
Claim(s) 4 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamori in view of Hara (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0061314).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Tamori teaches the system of claims 1 and 10 as set forth above. However, Tamori does not teach wherein the instructions of the memory, when executed, cause the computing system to: identify a supply based on the person condition; identify a location that has the supply; determine that the first path is within a predetermined proximity of the location; and set the first path condition to indicate that the first path is within the predetermined proximity of the location that has the supply.
Hara, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a system for dispensing medication to a person. The receives determines a medication needed by the person (Paragraph 0019 At a medical facility equipped with the third terminal apparatus 14, health care professionals provide medical services for patients. The third terminal apparatus 14 generates prescription-related information based on user inputs about prescriptions based on the medical services.), identifies a vendor vehicle which has the medication in stock (Paragraph 0099 In a case in which the prescribed quantity of the medicine is stocked by the vendor vehicle 16, the controller 41 controls the communication interface 39 to send to the on-board apparatus 15 a request for notification of the location of the vendor vehicle 16.), determines if the vendor vehicle is along the path of the person (Paragraph 0099 When the location of the vendor vehicle 16 is received from the on-board apparatus 15 in response to the request for the notification of the location, the controller 41 determines whether the vendor vehicle 16 is able to reach a point on the travel route from the location within the travel time period.), and determines a parking location to dispense the medication to the person (Paragraph 0102 When the controller 41 authorizes the vendor vehicle 16 to sell the medicine as described above, the controller 41 determines a location on the travel route as a parking location. The controller 41 also determines a collection time by which the vendor vehicle 16 is controlled to reach the parking location. The method of determining the parking location and the collection time is similar to the determination method implemented by the controller 22 of the first terminal apparatus 12.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Tamori with the teachings of Hara which teaches determining a medication needed by the person, identifying a vendor vehicle which has the medication in stock, determining if the vendor vehicle is along the path of the person, and determining a parking location to dispense the medication to the person in order to reduce the effort required by patients to receive pharmaceutical products (See Hara Paragraph 0011 The information processing apparatus, the information processing system, the storage medium, and the information processing method according to an embodiment of the present disclosure can reduce the effort required by patients to receive pharmaceutical products.).
Claim(s) 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamori in view of Thomas (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0350079).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Tamori teaches the system of claims 1 and 10 as set forth above. However, Tamori does not teach wherein the instructions of the memory, when executed, cause the computing system to: determine a third path that extends between the source and the first destination; identify a number of people clustered around a location that have a disease; determine that the number of people meets a threshold; and exclude the third path from being part of the first path based on the third path being within a predetermined proximity of the location and the number of people meeting the threshold.
Thomas, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a navigation system. The system determines intermediate locations along the route of a person which are experiencing disease outbreaks which may adversely affect the person due to the condition of the person’s vaccination status (Paragraph 0017 The personal information of the user collected by the smartphone 410 or computer 420 also includes any intermediate locations along the user's travel route that are not specifically indicated on the user's travel itinerary. For example, the user travelling from Toledo, Ohio to New York City, may reside in Ft. Wayne, Ind. and planning on driving to Toledo for a flight. System 10 will collect this information and determine if any actual or potential outbreaks exist along one or more routes to Toledo from the user's residential address. For example, system 10 may recognize an outbreak or potential outbreak in Defiance, Ohio, a likely intermediate location along a potential driving route between the user's residential address and Toledo.) and provides alternate routes to the person which do not include the intermediate locations experiencing outbreaks (Paragraph 0020 System 10 may provide alternative routes to avoid the need to update vaccinations or the user may propose such routes. The user inputs information about new vaccinations they received and any changes to the travel plan(s). Data analyzing system 200 analyzes the updated personal data to create routes of travel based on the user's current vaccination records, ability to get the recommended vaccination, and travel schedule.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Tamori with the teachings of Thomas which teaches determining intermediate locations along the route of a person which are experiencing disease outbreaks which may adversely affect the person due to the condition of the person’s vaccination status and providing alternate routes to the person which do not include the intermediate locations experiencing outbreaks in order to help the person avoid dangerous locations along their route (See Thomas Paragraph 0023 If an infectious disease outbreak in identified within this radius, system 10 warns the user of needed vaccinations for the identified disease so they user can receive the needed vaccination and/or avoid the location of the identified outbreak.).
Claim(s) 6 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamori in view of Lakshminarayanan (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0158233).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Tamori teaches the system of claims 1 and 10 as set forth above. However, Tamori does not teach wherein the instructions of the memory, when executed, cause the computing system to: generate a graph that represents a plurality of nodes including a source node that represents the source, a destination node that represents the first destination and beginning paths as different graph routes from the source node to the destination node, wherein each of the graph routes includes a different group of nodes of the plurality of nodes, wherein the plurality of nodes represent different geographic locations; set weights of the graph based on resource supplies, diseases, and distances between the plurality of nodes; and select the first path from the beginning paths based on the weights.
Lakshminarayanan, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a system for managing an emergency response. The system maps locations of emergency locations and emergency havens and determines routes and alternate routes between the emergency locations and emergency havens based on resources at the emergency havens, diseases at the emergency locations, and distances between the locations (Paragraph 0059 In at least one embodiment, the emergency vehicles 416 will be routed 538 and rerouted as necessary to transport the in transit users 414 from the emergency locations 402 to the emergency havens 424 in real-time based on factors that include, without limitation, changing conditions of the emergency conditions 408 and/or the emergency locations 402, a change in the populations of the evacuees 406 and the in transit users 414, the populations of the in transit users 414 at the emergency havens 424 approaching known capacity, adding and removing stops along the route 422 which may, or may not, be requested by the evacuees 406 and in transit users 414, while still maintaining an arrival at the scheduled emergency havens 424 within the prescribed time period. Paragraph 0042 The emergency conditions 408 may include, without limitation, seismic events, cyclones (including tornadoes, tropical storms, and hurricanes), tsunamis, and radiation, chemical, and bacteriological releases.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Tamori with the teachings of Lakshminarayanan which teaches mapping locations of emergency locations and emergency havens and determining routes and alternate routes between the emergency locations and emergency havens based on resources at the emergency havens, diseases at the emergency locations, and distances between the locations in order to make navigation decisions based on real-time information (See Lakshminarayanan Paragraph 0059 In at least one embodiment, the emergency vehicles 416 will be routed 538 and rerouted as necessary to transport the in transit users 414 from the emergency locations 402 to the emergency havens 424 in real-time based on factors…).
Claim(s) 7, 9 and 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamori in view of Foreman (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0108342).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Tamori teaches the system of claims 1 and 10 as set forth above. Tamori further teaches wherein the instructions of the memory, when executed, cause the computing system to: control a vehicle based on the first path based on the first path (Paragraph 0367 In step S101, the abnormal situation processing unit 203 controls the information display unit 252 to present the information of the medical institution for applying the medical treatment to the driver in the abnormal physical condition, and move the vehicle 11 toward the medical institution.).
However, Tamori does not teach wherein the instructions of the memory, when executed, cause the computing system to: receive a person selection of the first path.
Foreman, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a navigation system for an emergency response. The system receives a user input for a selection for a path to a hospital (Paragraph 0032 For example, at the location of accident device 140, the driver is responsive and requests to go to a specific hospital associated with a doctor whom the driver is a patient. Based on the driver request (e.g., preference), emergency responsive navigation program 200 receives the new hospital from emergency personnel and updates the second half of priority route 122.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Tamori with the teachings of Foreman which teaches receiving a user input for a selection for a path to a hospital in order allow the user to select a specific hospital where the user is already a patient (See Foreman Paragraph 0032 For example, at the location of accident device 140, the driver is responsive and requests to go to a specific hospital associated with a doctor whom the driver is a patient.).
Regarding claims 9 and 17, Tamori teaches the system of claims 1 and 10 as set forth above. However, Tamori does not teach wherein the person includes persons, the person condition includes person conditions, and the instructions of the memory, when executed, cause the computing system to: combine the person conditions into a person vector representation; and represent geographic locations of different geographic locations between the source and destination as geographic vector representations, wherein to determine the first path, the instructions of the memory, when executed, cause the computing system to identify the first path based on distances between the person vector representation and the geographic vector representations.
Foreman, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a navigation system for an emergency response. The system deploys multiple emergency vehicles during an emergency in order to respond to multiple individuals (Paragraph 0028 In some embodiments, emergency responsive navigation program 200 selects more than one instance of priority device 110 with respect to accident device 140. For example, emergency responsive navigation program 200 determines a traffic collision occurs that includes a minimum of ten vehicles. As the occupancy of a single ambulance is limited to two boarded patients, and the number of injured individuals is unknown, emergency responsive navigation program 200 deploys multiple instances of priority device 110.) and determines a path for each of the emergency vehicle based on their distances from the individuals (Paragraph 0029 In one embodiment, emergency responsive navigation program 200 locates the emergency treatment providers that are closest to accident device 140 by travel time and/or distance. Emergency responsive navigation program 200 identifies the emergency treatment providers within the navigation database. Emergency responsive navigation program 200 determines the routes between the location of accident device 140 and the emergency treatment providers and calculates distances and estimated time of arrival (e.g., travel time). Emergency responsive navigation program 200 selects the emergency treatment provider based on the fastest estimated time of arrival.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Tamori with the teachings of Foreman which teaches deploying multiple emergency vehicles during an emergency in order to respond to multiple individuals and determining a path for each of the emergency vehicle based on their distances from the individuals in order to respond to emergency situations where more than one emergency vehicle is required (See Foreman Paragraph 0028 In some embodiments, emergency responsive navigation program 200 selects more than one instance of priority device 110 with respect to accident device 140. For example, emergency responsive navigation program 200 determines a traffic collision occurs that includes a minimum of ten vehicles.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of the record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant’s disclosure.
Hickle – U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0052968
Mabee – U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0160645
McRaith – U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0329917
Singleton – U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/0204837
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK D MOHL whose telephone number is (571)272-8987. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00AM-4:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PATRICK DANIEL MOHL/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666